Should I post the welcome message, Defunc7?

I've made you a NWN2Wiki sysop. Now be nice to people! -- Alec Usticke 18:05, 15 December 2005 (PST)

now, who shall I random-ban first ;P--Defunc7 18:10, 15 December 2005 (PST)

Lots of minor edits[]

  • Defunc7, do you have your preferences set to mark all your edits as minor by any chance? -- Alec Usticke 15:28, 16 December 2005 (PST)
  • Not really, but they all seem minor at the time I do them. It's all a bit random. I'll throw some big ones in maybe ;) --Defunc7 15:32, 16 December 2005 (PST)
On Wikipedia, a minor edit is one that does not change the visible content of the page... I'm not sure if you wish to use a similar policy here, but it is somewhat counterintuitive to mark edits as minor when they are not - some users do not show minor edits in the recent changes list and if there are content changes, they may not be reviewed or commented upon; new additions to talk pages may also go unseen. --OneFourTwo 12:58, 28 June 2006 (PDT)
I only mark edits minor if it's just a spelling mistake or some such. -- Alec Usticke 13:19, 28 June 2006 (PDT)


Thanks for fixing that with "name". -- Pstarky 05:21, 18 December 2005 (PST)


You're awesome, Defunc7. I knew if I added those stubs you'd come through. Arcane trickster looks interesting. Even better, Obsidian has said they've fixed the spell progression for arcane PrCs. -- Alec Usticke 14:31, 21 December 2005 (PST)

Easy cut&paste job (though there's no way our "classes" template can work with PrCs & their expanded requisites).

I have a mild dislike for PrCs that need arcane (or divine) spell casting to qualify, it just seems like there's so many of them at the expense of physical classes like fighters & rogues, who are funky too. I was kinda wondering if they're gonna avoid the NWN1 PrCs since "well people already played with those" or if we can look forward to better implemented SDs or blackguards etc. --Defunc7 14:39, 21 December 2005 (PST)

FYI, it looks like there's some arcane trickster references on the Dragon disciple page. -- Alec Usticke 16:11, 22 December 2005 (PST)

BAB article looks great, Defunc7. Thanks! -- Alec Usticke 14:02, 31 December 2005 (PST)

Character attributes: Great idea for a category. Nice! -- Alec Usticke 14:29, 8 January 2006 (PST)

Armor Class redirect[]

  • *sniff* You deleted my Armor Class redirect to Armor class. I think we should keep that redirect, because I notice in DnD literature that both words are often capitalized. My preference would be armor class but a lot of materials write Armor Class, so both are correct. -- Alec Usticke 16:37, 30 December 2005 (PST)
  • It deserved it! giving me dirty looks! well I suppose so, just so long as it doesn't give me any more back-talk!--Defunc7 16:39, 30 December 2005 (PST)

Farwood wyrd experiment[]

  • There must be some method to your madness, but why put some of the Farwood wyrd sections in templates? Why not just put them all in the article? -- Alec Usticke 13:15, 7 January 2006 (PST)
  • I figure it as part of the data-duplication we'd get if we start dropping lists all over the place. The wizard and sorcerer spell-lists are exactly the same. If the list itself was a template, u only need to edit 1 thing if it needs alteration. If we added a 3rd location for the same list (a list article attached to the relevant spells category) u have additional work when it comes to edits. If we don't catch all 3, we get inconsistencies. It's debatable how useful it'd be depending on how many locations we have for each list. It did throw up a more insane idea which consisted of making every single link a template so the link would only need to be editted in one location ever :p --Defunc7 15:01, 7 January 2006 (PST)
  • Makes sense to me. Yeah, templates are useful if the same info will be repeated. A disadvantage is that it makes it hard for a regular user to edit (which is sometimes on purpose, like with the Sandbox). -- Alec Usticke 15:30, 7 January 2006 (PST)

Moving opinions[]

I was wondering, how you can move the "opinion" of Isaac's Greater Missile Storm storm to the talk page, without even fixing the misspelled link? okay, not just that...

I am adding gameplay notes ("opinions") to all the spells as and when. This spells is broken, and I have described it against several other spells. Do you want diagrams and tables for the point to be made? Do we want to simply be a game manual here, and not be actually really any more useful then Gamebanshee? I have described other things as being "rubbish", why was that not altered and deleted? Or should I reformat my argument to look more professional?

I am just interested to know why you moved it. You didn't state a reason in the change logs, or in fact discuss it on the talk page before you did it like people do for most things (see the paladin talk page for a good example) - Jasperre 12:06, 12 January 2007 (PST)

Personally, the main page for each article should be objective for most pages, stating the specifics e.g. how it functions. A film plot written exactly as it happens, a spell exactly how it acts. Discussion is exactly that, subjective opinions on the item in question. Isaac's has no game or dev declaration that it is "officially" overpowered, so you certainly can't put that as an objective statement. Moving the content to talk page, makes use of available divisions between subjective and objective content as well as cleaning up the core information to avoid information overload for visitors. Correcting spelling etc is a seperate issue that isn't required just to move the information. As to the reason I "caught" the specific block was because I didn't have anything better to do, and it is a large chuck of the page. Due to my workload I have reduced my general correction of added material, having let a number of obvious problems go passed. The fact Isaac's Magic Missile Storm has all caps for each word has been discussed many times before, when it was agreed a number of time it should be "Isaac's magic missile storm" due to the linking functionality of NWN2Wiki's core software
As you've pointed out your manyshot page I'll give u a quick run through of some points on that too. There is no reason to include the full 3.5 details when a simple link to one of the many external dnd 3.5 specific wikis would suffice (where their team of dedicated users can keep it in check with the actual PnP rules, irrelevant of nwn2 issues). The differences can be listed, in the same way as we link & compare NWN1 issues. Using @ in the various tables then having a full explanation of the actual meaning produces an overly complex section, either rework it into something a bit clearer (using links to other articles) or create a new page dealing with the specifics of how the multiple skills combine. You've got additional tables for basic AC vs AB which is obviously something for a seperate article since it's core (not to say basic example values can't be used within the article itself). Rapidshot and Impoved Rapidshot are seperate skills, the detailed specifics of each are for seperate articles, throw in references.
--Defunc7 14:12, 13 January 2007 (PST)
Well, first, on the naming of pages, as you might note I have brough up the capitalisation of page names in the talk page. It is unresolved and I am personally much in favour of doing what WotC, other wiki's and Obsidian has done with naming titles of things (ie; capitalisation of page titles, since they are names of thing). I fully explain it in the talk page. I always move pages from their uncapitalised version, anyway. Edit: I am mistaken, I must have created the page first, no pages link to it, not that links cannot be easily fixed later (so Issac's greater missile storm can redirect to it.
If you feel that the Manyshot page is wrong, then you are free to change it. The reference material there is all not on other pages, and interlinking core gameplay rules pages when many are still "speculation" is something I avoided. The use of "@" for instance is because there is no logical way to display that there are 2 arrows in a single shot rolled by the attack (IE: I roll one attack roll, and 2 arrows hit or miss). Feel free to discuss or change it of course, if something else makes more sense (I had to add a note at the end of the table explaining it, noted on the talk page).
I brought up manyshot because it had the references to Rapid Shot and Improved Rapid Shot (which are feats not skills :) ). I link to the manyshot page for the comparision page. There is no where in the manual of style or other pages which have "interim" pages which, for example, compare the workings and effects of 3 different feats against each other! I had to put it somewhere basically. If you can think of a better name feel free to say.
Finally, I will rework the missile storm page. It will be easy to set out the workings then add a note about it being powerful compared to the other spells (or how "useful" it is). This should satisfy you, although no where does it say this wiki is wikipedia and should contain no opinions (see "Gameplay Notes"), it is not a NPOV wiki, or if it is, no one has said so! I do think if you want it to be a manual, then it would be a lot easier to simply have static HTML or screenshots like Game Banshee or NWVault does. We have a few pages about builds of characters. These are not NPOV either, so should they be removed? Just because Obsidian hasn't said it is overpowered (would they ever say that?!) doesn't mean facts about it cannot be laid out, like I have done for Spell Mantle - which basically says "Greater Spell Mantle is useless if you just empower Spell Mantle to be a level 9 spell"!
I do think this needs to be discussed more. If someone is adamant something is wrong and alters a page with no discussion, I would contribute in other ways, or say to get the stance changed, like I am here.
- Jasperre 06:16, 14 January 2007 (PST)

We are not wikipedia, but they sure as hell have a lot more users feeding the overall design, so are a very solid guide to how things work. While we obvious have a more specialised content, it does not give us reason to disregard their overall outline.

The existence of discussion pages is the very proof that this is not just a cut&dry online manual. The discussion pages are not seperate from the content.

Since the issue of capping title is unresolved it would seem reasonable to expect you to keep consistency with previously created articles (which mostly favour uncapped if no explicit reason existed). You cannot back it up as the way to go based on errors (or at least items that do not match the currently proscribed design) which were not corrected by absent admin, especially if it is your own work. If not correctness, follow consistency. Even with a final resolution, splitting the consistency means a huge amount of work to correct the pages will exist that don't follow the accepted solution. Creating an capped & uncapped version of each article (one being a redirect) puts additional workload on the system, and additional confusion on visitors (since two pages exist which matchs their desired information).

Builds are a seperate issue, since they are solely a work of user design they cannot follow any rule other than with basic layout (in the same way you cannot tell an artist how to paint in their own style, but you can tell him the basics of painting).

Creating detailed information on how multiple feats and skills combine on a page specifically about a single feat or skill will lead to problems. Either the information will exist on a single page (to the ignorance of anyone who looks at another page which is equaly qualified to host that information) or the information will exist seperately on multiple pages (creating problems of data duplication, a source of inconsistency errors or additional workload to ensure correct information). If multiple pages are all equally valid as a home for a single piece of information, the data has to be moved to a single location to prevent these problems arising. The data is either represented on each page but fed in from the single source (this can be done as templates, though that brings additional issues), or the data is located on its own unique page with links to it from the valid pages.

Whether you add "facts" or not, the wording can immediately lend itself to "opinion". "Greater Spell Mantle is useless if you just empower Spell Mantle to be a level 9 spell" becomes a throw away comment with "just". Empowerment is relatively costly since it requires things which are not free, it is not something you "just" have if you want it. It also implies that GSMantle is straight out useless because you can "just" use something better even though there is an assumption that that players will freely take both empowerment and spell mantle and a level 9 slot.

If you feel you cannot link to a speculation page, then you must change the speculation page to the actual version so that you feel it is a valid link target. Speculation is there merely as a precusor to the actual information, much as stub pages hold bare data in wait for a fuller article. There is no reason why you cannot change it at a later date. --Defunc7 09:28, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Okay, so the opinion on Greater Spell Mantle is based on the use of Empower. It is stated, along with most of the other information in the page, that it is fine if you don't have empower of course. (note; and this is the problem; that spells like Spell Mantle come in 4 flavours - can you suggest the best way to migrate that information well? I've simply copied it and altered the notes, a template would be overkill since we'd have dozens of templates simply used to print a bit of data).
You are not explaining why one thing was altered and not another however. We cannot simply say "we should be like wikipedia" and then randomly decide what we want to do about that. If we were like wikipedia, we'd have a policy or page on many of the things you've mentioned (apart from the page titles, which is in a manual of style).
Like I have said, I will add gameplay notes, since they are incredibly useful. If, however, this is going to be a manual, I will be able to take my work elsewhere or keep it to myself. I don't mind letting you get on with filling out all the information instead. Notes are that, notes, and obviously are opinion based, since you cannot factually say where and when XXX spell is most useful or what spells compare against it, because you'd have to have data from every single other spell in the game, and a lot more data about enemies and their resistances, and so on. If the page is only meant to be manual data then there is little point in doing a wiki page on it, since it is no better, or worse than, Gamebanshee or the vault!
I do want to know what I am "allowed" to put there, I'll move this discussion to a better place if need be too.
PS: On speculation pages; I am trying to tidy them up as I go along, but is why there is a large AC vs BAB chart since that data is integral to the manyshot/rapidshot comparison (ie; where the % hits come from). On page naming, I will intend to create pages with lower case names, but I am still moving spells to the uppercase since that's unresolved at the moment. Redirects cause more processing power? There are not even 2000 articles, I doubt that's a problem. Pages being linked to from more then one name? Its a common thing to happen in all wiki's and accepted that redirects have to be there, like them or not, and the fact it will always end up on the correct page is what matters, since either link will work for a user (thus "Greater Spell Mantle" will work as well as "Spell Mantle, Greater" - they are both, sans capitals, "correct"). The amount of time to go through doing things is debatable. I updated the Template:Spell page heavily, the existing ones simply broke, and had to be redone, I helped do that (along with other users) which didn't take more then a few days (although not all the spells are in the wiki yet). - Jasperre 13:02, 14 January 2007 (PST)

You seem to have missed my point, I'm not saying that this wiki should only be the core manual information, but there needs to be a clear and solid distinction between the core information (e.g. this spell does X damage), "advanced" use & logical deductions (e.g. this spell has synergy with spell X, or compares to spell Y) and straight out opinion. This distinction applies both to the content and the way it is written, both language and grammar. Using the same language across the different division can lead to ambiguity (people taking opinion as fact, or ignoring fact as opinion, or reading the deductions as core functionality). Clumping all the information together without a good layout will blur the distinctions in the same way.

Obviously for such a small user base we cannot spend most of our time hashing out every single aspect of the layout and grammar (until it actually comes up), nor are any of our users exactly "perfect" in their adherence to the argeed rules, nor are those rules perfect for every occurance. So the base reference for new issues should be Wikipedia (which does have opinions on the discussion pages), or consistency with older pages. If a drastic overall is needed (such as the spell template), there is likely to still be relevant presidences set (e.g. table layout, section titles) which will not dictating the whole, do advise on how to construct individual parts of the article. The wiki should try to maintain a level of consistency to give it a level of uniformity and reduce confusion for visitors. Changes which take a long time to implement fully (e.g. correcting each article title if a capping policy was ever finalised) have to be done in shifts.

The AB vs BAB may be integral to the manyshot/rapidshot caculations, but the calculation is not integral to the actual page it resides on. Only information directly relating to NWN2's Manyshot is integral, while the calculation, the expanded details of 3.5 Manyshot would suffice as links (with an accompanying sentence if needed).

As you've suggested, this discussion itself is extensive enough to warrant a seperate page. I'm suggesting your calculations warrant a seperate page. If not due to its actual size, then for the fact numerous equally valid "home" pages will need either their own copy (data duplication issues) or to reference it (while the Manyshot page has no claim to the calculation greater than the other pages).

I do not claim redirects are a particularly large drain on physical hardware resources but they are another source of possible incosistency, as well as appearing during user searchs (effectively doubling the amount of results visitors have to wade through)--Defunc7 14:04, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Okay then, that part (the BAB vs AC) can be moved, that was not really too important anyway.
On redirects, they do not turn up in searches even if the title of the page is part of a redirect: http://www.nwn2wiki.org/Special:Search?search=mantle&fulltext=Search - Here, Spell mantle is not returned, but Spell Mantle is :) redirects never turn up in category pages etc. too, all they contain is the redirect line after all. Very useful to have :)
I will rewrite the Missile Storm notes, and put it into a gameplay / notes section as before (like Manyshot/Mantle pages/Dispel Magic pages with more information). These are gameplay notes, not manual facts, since there is no way that only facts can be listed to give a decent overview of the spell itself of course. - Jasperre 15:22, 14 January 2007 (PST)

"missile" search does bring up the redirect page "Isaac's lesser missile storm".--Defunc7 15:48, 14 January 2007 (PST)

Hahaha, thats because someone put it up for a candidate for deletion, which also makes the redirect non functional, hehe :) fixed now. Any other ones? - Jasperre 02:07, 15 January 2007 (PST)

How to Edit Tables?[]

How to Edit Tables?[]

I was looking at the spells tables was wondering how to EDIT the values like {{{duration}}}
~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 06:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Defunc7, I would like to know if there's a way to avoid the treason of your companions in the finale, before the fight against Black Garius. Do either Qara or Sand have to betray the main character? 03:48, March 23, 2012 (UTC)